In defense of "tolerance," a Feb. 14 letter-writer disparagingly
referred to our society as "homophobic" and wrongly affirmed the
"naturalness" of a homosexual orientation. Our nation was founded on the
Christian faith and many of our policies, e.g., Abstinence Until
Marriage, are based on Christian teachings and morality.

We are forewarned in Scripture, according to the New American Standard
Bible translation, that "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the
kingdom of God." Must we, therefore, consider all such acts as natural
and give hearty approval to those who practice them?

Diversity is really based on knowing that each one of us is created in
the image of God, the Creator referred to in our Declaration of
Independence. Tolerance and knowledge of who we are is best practiced
when we "love the sinner and hate the sin."

Brothers and sisters,
Do we need as some do,
letters of recommendation to you or from you?
You are our letter, written on our hearts,
known and read by all,
shown to be a letter of Christ ministered by us
written not in ink but by the spirit of the living God
not on tablets of stone but on tablets that are hearts of flesh.

Such confidence we have through Christ toward God.
Not that of ourselves we are qualified
to take credit for anything as coming from us
rather our qualification comes from God
who has indeed qualified us as ministers of a new covenant
not of letter but of spirit
for the letter brings death but the spirit brings life.
II Corinthians 3:1b-6

The Law was never rejected by Paul. It was written on his heart.
For those of you who have read my paper, Jesus sought to teach us that
what was formerly meted out to us by the Temple priests, should be
intuitive, written on our hearts, therefore ending priestly rule and the
need for the corrupt temple sacrifical system in Jerusalem, making
"learned behavior intuitive." What is not explicity embraced or
condemned in the NT can be learned from the OT rather than using what is
not explicity embraced or condemned in the NT as "loopholes" which is
precisely what was wrong with the written Law.

Now let's look at what the brother of a past president of
yeshiva university has to say about the homosexual argument.
(Maurice Lamm, The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage, Harper & Row
1979):

THE HOMOSEXUAL ARGUMENT AND A JEWISH RESPONSE
I remember reading the account of a gay Jewish couple's
"engagement" announcement a few years back. The couple described the
joyous response of the Chavurah gathering, who danced around the couple,
singing siman tov, mazal tov. "It is natural that we should want to
celebrate our friends' happiness; why shouldn't we rejoice over the
good fortune of two men who have found a loving relationship?" The
homosexual argument is paraphrased as follows in an article by Hershel
Matt:

Granted that marriage in Judaism has always been heterosexual;
and granted that one of the major purposes of marriage has always been
procreation in order both to populate the world and to pass on the
Covenant way of life. But is that the sole purpose and meaning of Jewish
marriage? What of the legitimacy of sexual pleasure and release - is
that not also Jewish? Longterm abstinence is no more feasible, bearable,
or desirable for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. And does not
marriage have other purposes as well: the fostering of mutual affection,
care, trust, sacrifice and support; the encouragement and sustenance of
growth-intellectual, esthetic, moral and spiritual; the sharing of pain
and anxiety, the nurturing of joy and hope; the overcoming of loneliness
-all of these on the basis of an enduring commitment of faithfulness? Is
not marriage the primary and preferred and, indeed, the only fully
acceptable context for furthering these purposes? If it is
Torah-teaching that the fullest possible meaning of personhood is to be
found in and through marriage, shall we, because we are homosexuals, be
denied the right to seek such meaning and to develop such personhood? If
God, in whose image we homosexuals, too, are created, has directly or
indirectly caused or willed or allowed us to be what we cannot help
being-men and women unable to function heterosexually-r-an we believe,
and can you heterosexuals believe, that He wants us to be denied the
only possible arrangement whereby we can live as deeply a human life as
we are capable of? Here precisely is the focus of the homosexual
argument-The union will bring into being a caring and loving
relationship. Is the purpose of marriage not also companionship? Unlike
celibacy and masturbation, this strikes the note of a meaningful
partnership with another human being.

NORMAM LAMM OFFERS A JEWISH RESPONSE
"Loving, selfless concern" and "meaningful, personal
relationships," the great slogans of the now dated "new morality" and
the exponents of situation ethics, have become the litany of sodomy in
our times. Simple logic should permit us to use the same criteria for
excusing adultery or any other act heretofore held to be immoral; and
indeed, that is just what has been done, and it has received the
sanction not only of liberals and humanists, but of certain religionists
as well. "Love," "fulfillment," "exploitive," "meaningful"-the list
itself sounds like a lexicon of emotionally charged terms drawn at
random from the disparate sources of both Christian and
psychologically-oriented agnostic circles. Logically, we must ask the
next question: What moral depravities cannot be excused by the sole
criterion of "warm, meaningful human relations" or "fulfillment," the
newest semantic heirs to "love"? Love, fulfillment, and happiness can
also be attained in incestuous contacts and certainly in polygamous
relationships. Is there nothing at all left that is "Sinful,"
"unnatural," or "immoral" if it is practiced "between two consenting
adults"? According to midrashic teaching, the generation of Noah was
eradicated by the Flood because it had descended to such forms of
immorality as the writing of formal marriage contracts for sodomy
(homosexuality) and buggery (a man-beast relationship), a practice
prevalent in the Athens of Plato and the Rome of Nero but unheard of in
the long history of the Jewish people.

(Note how Lamm accuses the Christians as being a source of
legitimation of homosexuality)

HOW SHALL WE VIEW THE HOMOSEXUAL TODAY?
The act of homosexuality is prohibited, but all practicing
homosexuals cannot be arbitrarily lumped together. The response must be
to each individual and to his motives. Dr. Judd Marmor delineates four
types of homosexual activity. "Genuine homosexuality" is based on
strong preferential erotic feelings for members of the same sex.
"Transitory homosexual behavior occurs among adolescents who would
prefer heterosexual experiences but are denied such opportunities
because of social, cultural or psychological reasons."Situational
homosexual exchanges" are characteristic of prisoners, soldiers and
others who are heterosexual but are denied access to women for long
periods of time. "Transitory and opportunistic homosexuality" is that of
delinquent young men who permit themselves to be used by pederasts in
order to make money or win other favors, although their primary erotic
interests are exclusively heterosexual. To these may be added, for
purposes of our analysis, two other types. The first category, that of
genuine homosexuals, may be said to comprehend two subcategories: those
who experience their condition as one of duress or uncontrollable
passion which they would rid themselves of if they could, and those who
transform their idiosyneracy into an idealogy, i.e., the gay militants
who assert the legitimacy and validity of homosexuality as an
alternative to heterosexuality. The sixth category is based on what Dr.
Rollo May has called "the new Puritanism," the peculiarly modern notion
that one must experience all sexual pleasures, whether or not one feels
inclined to them, as if the failure to taste every cup passed at the
sumptuous banquet of carnal life means that one has not truly lived.
Thus we have transitory homosexual behavior not of adolescents, but of
adults who feel that they must "try everything" at least once in their
lives. Clearly, genuine homosexuality experienced under duress (Hebrew:
ones) most obviously lends itself to being termed pathological,
especially where dysfunction appears in other aspects of the
personality. Opportunistic homosexuality, ideological homosexuality, and
transitory adult homosexuality are at the other end of the spectrum and
appear more reprehensible. As for the intermediate categories, while
they cannot be called illnesses, they do have a greater claim on our
sympathy.... Hence there are types of homosexuality that do not warrant
any special consideration, because the notion of ones or duress (i.e.,
disease) in no way applies. Where the category of mental illness does
apply, the act itself remains toevah (an abomination), but the fact of
illness lays upon us the obligation of pastoral compassion,
psychological understanding, and social concern. In this sense,
homosexuality is no different from any other anti-halakhic act, where it
is legitimate to distinguish between the objective act itself, including
its ethical and moral consequences, and the mentality and inner
development of the person who perpetrates the act. For instance, if a
man murders in a cold and calculating fashion for reasons of profit, the
act is criminal and the transgressor is criminal. If, however, a
psychotic murders, the transgressor is diseased rather than criminal,
but the objective act itself remains a criminal act. The courts may
therefore treat the perpetrator of the crime as they would a patient,
with all the concomitant compassion and concern for therapy, without
condoning the act as being morally neutral. To use halakhic terminology,
the objective crime remains a maaseh averah [a violative action],
whereas the person who transgresses is considered innocent on the
grounds of ones. In such cases, the transgressor is spared the full
legal consequences of his culpable act, although the degree to which he
may be held responsible varies from case to case. The response to the
homosexual must contain a number of ingredients: intelligence,
compassion, personal strength, and an abiding loyalty and commitment to
Jewish belief and Jewish history.
------------------------

Note that Lamm expresses "an abiding loyalty and commitment to
Jewish belief and Jewish history." Where is the same among Christians?
Note also that there is a Jewish (aka religious argument) and a
homosexual (non-religious argument). Note also that orthodox Jewry does
not accept the homosexual argument.
In my paper I describe for you where in genesis there is
evidence for eugenics culminating in 20th century disparities in IQ
testing that demonstrate Ashkenazi Jewry has the highest mean IQ in the
world. (Paul Johnson, The History of the Jews, Kevin Macdonald, A People
that shall Dwell alone, Hernsteinn and Murray, The Bell Curve). These
religious people reject homosexuality and also have some of the highest
birth rates in the world. Many of these Eastern European Jews form the
very settlement population that refuses to leave Palestinian territory.
Their refusal is the nexus of tension in the Middle East. They also have
powerful communities in New York such as New Square that bloc-vote (as
their communities are theocracies) to elect politicians as they did for
Hilary Clinton. Chuck Schumer was elected by Brooklyn Jews and Wall
Street. Schumer champions abortion and unrestricted immigration ( he
held a press conference with Carol Maloney on a case of infibulation to
morally justify unrestricted immigration which later turned out to be
bogus). All of these behaviors supported by Schumer and Clinton favor
the orthodox breeding communities over indigenous Americans because
"niche theory in ecology predicts that a peripatetic group religiously
committed to a reproductive strategy of quantity and quality birthing is
necessarily expansionist and covetous of the elite niches of any host
civilization with which it interacts."'

The suggestion that homosexuals assist their affinals
(genetically related kin) as some sort of justification for
homosexuality and a repudiation of the fact that homosexuals do not
procreate, was made without a reference, and does not stand. It does
stand however, if we are talking about Jewish homosexuals. If the IQ
stats are true, and Jews on average are potentially smarter than the
rest of us, we can understand how Jewish homosexuals can be seen to be
supporting their orthodox affinals. All Jews are descended from orthodox
communities. If the Jewish homosexuals rise to the top of the homosexual
movements (virtually all the organized homosexual/feminist/abortion
movements are championed by secular Jews: e.g. gloria steinem),
encourage homosexuality and this decreases our birth rates, and unweaves
our social fabric (I live in NYC - homosexuals create a cohesive insular
culture organized against Christianity's sexual mores - they are
deliberately targeting their own birth religion in many cases) while at
the same time orthodox Jewry remains isolated in their own ghettos (get
is a hebrew word - Jews aren't put in ghettos - They create them to
remain separated from us) then the segregated Jewish communities remain
free from the damage (their birth rates remain high - their families
cohesive) while Jewish secular (affinals) homosexuals encourage our
"Canaanite" behavior that eventually "spews us out of the land." Isn't
the high immigration justified by our low birth rates - how often have
you heard it said we have to import people to keep our country going?
abortion, birth control, feminism and homosexuality have taken their
toll since the '60s.
It is now thought by many archeologists that the Jews did not
take Canaan in a rapid military campaign but over time as the Canaanites
violated levitical law and were "spewed out of the land" eventually to
be displaced.

The remark about the sterile castes being compared to human
behavior - let's compare. Haplodiploidy in the genus Hymenoptera to
which the eusocial bees, ants and wasps belong produce STERILE CASTES
that assist the breeders. They are born sterile and their function is
predetermined as in any caste. The Temple sacrificial system is a caste
system. It determines who is to have what function in society, indeed
even who is to be accepted in society. Remember Jesus healing and
returning the healed to the community? Hinduism is also a caste system.
We often say the Hindu caste system is evil, but the Judaic system is
most probably an offshoot by way of Zoroastrianism. How can you compare
eusocial insects with human beings unless you also accept predetermined
human function and establish a caste system - which is essentially
SLAVERY? Did you really think about the comparison you were making?

I for my part, will not ridicule the lack of scientific or
religious knowledge displayed by those who would sarcastically
characterize my comments. Perhaps now that I have elucidated my position
at length there may come a glimmer of understanding. I will pray for
that.

The argument for homosexuality is a homosexual argument as
Maurice Lamm has perfectly described it. It is not nor can it ever be a
religious argument. You either embrace religion or you don't. To the
extent you embrace religion, your survival and yes even your hegemony
(as can be seen in those orthodox communities in Palestinian territory)
are assured. Consider the IQs, and the enormous influence of orthodox
Jewry and then consider America at war with itself and the
disestablishment of the mainstream churches currently underway.

Consider the final words of the Old Covenant:
Be careful not to make a covenant with the natives of the land
against which you are going, or they will prove a snare in your midst.
No: you shall demolish their altars, smash their sacred pillars and cut
down their sacred poles. Exodus 34 (10-14)

religion evolved to ensure our survival. abandon religion and be
"consumed by fire" a Biblical term for death and extinction.

If you haven't read Wilson's Darwin Cathedral, go to the
bookstore and just read the section on what John Calvin did for the
people of Geneva and then consider that we have abandoned that kind of
religious dedication and consider the implications.

He who has eyes to see - let him see. If he has ears to hear -
let him hear.